Warning

Info

LSD+ Case Briefs

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Read as much content as you want during your trial. Cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.

Nix v. Hedden (1893)

Supreme Court of the United States - 149 U.S. 304

Contributed by LegalWriter

The ordinary meaning of a tomato is that it’s a vegetable, and thus a tomato counts as a vegetable for purposes of the Tariff Act regulating vegetables.

ICRA

Issue

Is a tomato a fruit (the specialized meaning) or a vegetable (the ordinary meaning) under the Tariff Act?

Conclusion

A tomato is a vegetable for purposes of the Tariff Act and thus a shipment of tomatoes is subject to the duty on vegetables imposed by the Tariff Act.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Rule

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Analysis

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Brief Facts & Holding

Facts

  • The plaintiff made an international shipment of tomatoes to New York, and was charged import duties on the tomato shipment pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1883. The Act charged a duty on vegetables but not fruits. The plaintiff sued for the duties he had been charged, arguing that tomatoes are fruits and thus not subject to the Tariff Act. The circuit court ruled against the plaintiff, and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Holding

  • Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
  • jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
  • proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
  • jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
  • jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
  • Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
  • Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
  • Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
Case Deep Dive
Majority opinion by Mb. Justice G-eay
  • Short Summary
  • Slide right/left for more/less details
  • Full Case Text

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. . Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur

Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, . Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat

Join LSD+

Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:

  • Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
  • LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
  • Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
  • Social learning with LSD community case high points
  • Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
  • 14-day free trial

Nix v. Hedden

Chat for Nix v. Hedden
brief-349
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.